schedule-iii

Uploads not yet counted as identity evidence

list_chart_rebaselines

List the uploads Datavrn is NOT counting as evidence of which entity a file belongs to. This happens when an entity’s chart of accounts grew or changed faster than Datavrn can vouch for from what it already holds — typically an acquisition, a migration, or a year-end restructure. NOTHING WAS REJECTED, BLOCKED OR CHANGED: the figures in those uploads are landed and live. What has not advanced is the evidence Datavrn compares FUTURE uploads against, so wrong-entity detection for this entity is working from a smaller picture than the entity’s real chart. Each row reports how many distinctive ledger names Datavrn already held (trusted_considered), how many the upload carries (incoming_considered), how many are on both sides (matched), and the two coverage ratios. Show your user those numbers in their own terms. shortfall names WHICH direction fell short, and it is the part to say out loud, because the three cases are different situations to an accountant: "incoming" means most of the file is ledger names Datavrn does not already treat as evidence — the chart in the file is much larger than what Datavrn holds; "trusted" means much of what Datavrn holds is missing from the file; "both" means the two charts barely overlap either way. It is null when there was nothing to compare against at all, which the row reports as reason "empty_trust_recovery". This call only lists. To confirm one of these uploads, call preview_chart_rebaseline for that upload — it re-reads the figures and issues the approval confirm_complete_chart needs. An empty list means nothing is waiting: for almost every entity that is the normal state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client_id`	Yes	The entity (client) id — from list_clients.
`on_behalf_of`	No	The email address your user signs in to Datavrn with. This records who authorised the change alongside the connection that made it. REQUIRED on an API-key connection — ask your user for it, do not guess. On an OAuth connection leave it out: the change is recorded as authorised by the member who connected; if you do supply it, it must be that member.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description claims 'This call only lists' and 'NOTHING WAS REJECTED, BLOCKED OR CHANGED', implying a read-only operation. However, the annotation readOnlyHint is false, which suggests the operation may not be read-only. This directly contradicts the description, so per the rules the score is 1.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the semantic distinctions of shortfall and the three cases. While lengthy, most sentences serve a clear purpose for an accountant-facing tool, though it could be trimmed without losing essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the returned row fields (trusted_considered, incoming_considered, matched, coverage ratios, shortfall, reason), the null case, and guidance on how to proceed. It does not cover pagination or error conditions, but for a list-only tool this is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters are well described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('List the uploads Datavrn is NOT counting as evidence'), names the exact resource ('uploads not yet counted as identity evidence'), and differentiates from the sibling preview_chart_rebaseline and confirm_complete_chart. It is unmistakable what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('This call only lists') and when to use the alternative ('To confirm one of these uploads, call preview_chart_rebaseline'), and also explains the normal state of an empty list. This gives clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All schedule-iii tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action — get_* reads, save_* writes, confirm_* approves, preview_* shows consequences before approval. Even the management-data trio (budgets, allocations, variance) is cleanly separated by surface. Two-step flows like preview_chart_rebaseline → confirm_complete_chart are clearly sequenced, so an agent won't confuse the stages.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern: get_* for reads, list_* for discovery, save_* for section writes, confirm_* for approvals, create_* for new entities/centres, preview_* for pre-approval checks. The few one-offs (ingest_upload, upload_trial_balance, set_header_row) still fit the verb-first convention. No camelCase or style mixing.

Tool Count2/5

At 67 tools this is well past the 'too many' threshold. While the Schedule III domain genuinely is broad — statutorily mandated sections, two-phase approval flows, readiness checks, and a separate management-data area — the surface is heavy; an agent will spend real effort just surveying the tool list. Some consolidation of the save_reserves/provisions/assets movements or merging preview+confirm pairs is possible.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle: upload → mapping/costing → grouping → capture (all statutory sections) → declarations → readiness → generate → finalise → download, plus entity setup and consolidated statements. Minor gaps: no tool directly exposes historical version diffing beyond list_snapshots, and the management-data section (budgets, allocations, variance) feels bolted on rather than integral to the core flow.

Resources

Need Help?